Idealists and Pragmatists
-
You wonder sometimes if this moron even served National Service going by what he says.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Wow I wanted to reply to OM, but it looks like he kenna arty bombard until nothing left in objective but craters liao... -
Maybe he PES E, or worse spent most of his NS life trying to argue with people around him everytime they complain about the SAF, trying to paint the SAF as a perfect organization...
And then he kenna company ostracized
Or maybe he's one of those CMI 2Lts/Spec with no EQ that everybody detests, who knows? -
Singapore is no place for idealists. It irks me, sometimes to the point of emotional stifling.
Majority of the population (even myself?) do not think out of the box enough. It's a culture in-bred into our education system.
Famous figures like Sun Yat Sen, Washington, Gandhi would have been banished to anonymity had they been born here. Only those like LHL, MBT, GY etc can make it.
Different systems breed a different kind of genius. Whether he's a good (or not so good) genius.....that's debatable. -
If somebody here is so insistent on pushing the “global” and “pragmatic” visions of Singapore as mantras, then why should the powers that promote the pragmatic approach make so much fuss over the citizens who take this creed to hard and become truly global and pragmatic people by migrating to whatever nation serves them the best?
Indeed, why all this talk and appeal to abstract ideas and concepts like "stayers" and "quitters" if pragmatism is the sole meaning of life.
Can he seriously say that if globalisation and pragmatism to achieve economic success were his main justifications for denouncing idealism and soul as needless obstacles, that the way Singapore is currently run best serves itÂ’s very people to those ends?
Indeed, the nationhood someone is pushing is more tantamount to treating any land like a shopping mallÂ… why should we shop there if it does not serve our needs best?
Not surprisingly by adopting that position, he has more or less undermined the basis of his campaign for Singaporeans to “know what’s best and toe the line”. Indeed if Singaporeans REALLY put pragmatism above all, then by all measures they would take actions to screw the nation.
Why raise the birth rate if children are mere economic transactions for the future? Why bother to stick around in a 700 km square land any longer then you ought to? Why defend it in war if our allegiance to it is mere contract?
Indeed why do we castigate NS dodgers? Because we still have ideas of duty and honour that go beyond mere economic cloutÂ… or else we ought to envy the draft dodger as being smart enough to avoid a needless, and economically impeding activity like NS.
So yes, we need idealism all the more. The thing that is truly hurting Singapore now is not excessive idealismÂ… it is excessive pragmatism, pragmatism to the point where men often cease becoming men, or worse, some kind of fungus. -
[quote]Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
If indeed nationality is of little, could you explain what reasons do Singaporeans have to justify their continued existence in Singapore? /quote]
Your question indicates that you are trapped in the old mindset of national boundaries. In the globalised world, nationality means little. It does not matter whether my doctor is Singaporean or African, as long as he does a good job. Similarly, as long as my fund manager ensures my investment grows each year, I do not care if he is from Toa Payoh or Timbuktu.
There is pride in Singapore only if Singapore is prosperous. In the 60s and 70s, Chinese nationals who emigrated to the US would refer to themselves as Americans. Today, more of them are prepared to call themselves Chinese. This has got to do with the increasing prosperity and confidence of China.
There will be national pride if the nation gives its population something to be proud of. You cannot force it out of your citizens when mothers have to desert their own children to work as domestic maids overseas. -
Yawn...after 40 years of free democratic elections, the Opposition Parties have not been able to even contest every seat, much less take more than 3 seats in Parliament. After 40 years of elections, more opposition party candidates have lost their deposits than those who managed to clinche a seat....that's what Singaporeans really think.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If you bought something that was going at 50%, and then it turned out that it was 50% of 200%... would that be a fair deal?
But of course I'd expected you to think that way. Is the current parliamentary representation truly representative of the voice of ALL Singaporeans?
Yawn, the numbers do not lie. And the bigger number in this case is 66.6%, which represents what Singaporeans really think. -
Precisely as a pragmatic measure, that is the right thing to say at a national day rally to the majority who do not have the skills to emigrate. Of course it is not in the national interests to see our brightest and ablest leaving for greener pastures where they can expect a better life. No PM will encourage them to leave even though he knows that he would have done precisely the same in their shoes. Those who would leave because they can find a better life elsewhere will go anyway. You must be naive to think that they will change their plans because the PM says so. Rather, it will be those who cannot leave who feel placated. It gives them a comfortable label...they remain because they are 'stayers', rather than 'failures' because they cannot find a job elsewhere even if they are unhappy in their current circumstance. This is politics...what do you expect?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If somebody here is so insistent on pushing the “global” and “pragmatic” visions of Singapore as mantras, then why should the powers that promote the pragmatic approach make so much fuss over the citizens who take this creed to hard and become truly global and pragmatic people by migrating to whatever nation serves them the best?
Indeed, why all this talk and appeal to abstract ideas and concepts like "stayers" and "quitters" if pragmatism is the sole meaning of life.
We have to come down hard on NS dodgers because they threaten to disrupt a system that works. If we do not come down hard on one dodger, we will have hundreds of 'young promising musicians' trying to dodge NS tomorrow. NS is essential for Singapore to have a viable military deterrent against real foreign threats. It is pragmatism that requires us to deny the aspirations of young musicians in the higher national interest.Indeed, the nationhood someone is pushing is more tantamount to treating any land like a shopping mallÂ… why should we shop there if it does not serve our needs best?[/quote]
That is precisely why if Singapore is to succeed, our policies must make this land most attractive to the most able, most innovative and most successful people in the world. We must attract the best to come and make Singapore prosperous. Then we will have a good reason to be proud of the nation and our citizens will enjoy a higher quality of life.
Any policy that enables us to achieve this higher purpose has to be good. That is pragmatism. So we adopt meritocracy, even though we know full well that those who are not as successful will be left behind in a such a system. We must consider the bigger picture and the higher purpose. We will always have those who lose out in the race, who will become poor. But the poor in a successful Singapore will still be better off than the poor in Indonesia, because the pie will be bigger. The smallest slice in the biggest pie may well be better than a big slice of a cup cake.
[quote]Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Indeed why do we castigate NS dodgers? Because we still have ideas of duty and honour that go beyond mere economic cloutÂ… or else we ought to envy the draft dodger as being smart enough to avoid a needless, and economically impeding activity like NS.
So yes, we need idealism all the more. The thing that is truly hurting Singapore now is not excessive idealismÂ… it is excessive pragmatism, pragmatism to the point where men often cease becoming men, or worse, some kind of fungus.
Our pragmatic approach has brought Singapore from the third world to the first over the past 40 years. It is the myopic, obsessive idealism of living fossils that threaten our continued success against the wishes and interests of the majority of Singaporeans. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Look Fool. Quit avoiding the question and instead castigating me for whatever you can think of. I do not care about your ideas. I care about answers. Otherwise, I consider you a lying cowardly scum who consistently runs away from debates.
Your question indicates that you are trapped in the old mindset of national boundaries. In the globalised world, nationality means little. It does not matter whether my doctor is Singaporean or African, as long as he does a good job. Similarly, as long as my fund manager ensures my investment grows each year, I do not care if he is from Toa Payoh or Timbuktu.
There is pride in Singapore only if Singapore is prosperous. In the 60s and 70s, Chinese nationals who emigrated to the US would refer to themselves as Americans. Today, more of them are prepared to call themselves Chinese. This has got to do with the increasing prosperity and confidence of China.
There will be national pride if the nation gives its population something to be proud of. You cannot force it out of your citizens when mothers have to desert their own children to work as domestic maids overseas.
And oh by the way, I intend to ply my trade elsewhere eventually. I would happily pick up an American citizenship anyhow. The Singapore Passport is a useless piece of paper after all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Now this is indeed interesting. I posted in a few posts ago that every electorate 85% of the population is sheep, the remainder seek to manipulate the people, and the others are so disgusted with everything but just simply powerless to do anything or don't care. I am guessing that you actually subscribe to that school of thought where people are sheep to be manipulated. Now tell me now, since you clearly regard people as sheep to be bullied, manipulated etc. Why should we listen to the Govt who actually doesn't do things that are in our interest but theirs? Moreover, it is pragmatic that the Govt lies to us and cover up their misdeeds to give a pretension that they are doing things in their interest and yet aren't. After all, we aren't family, so why should I care about others' well being?
Precisely as a pragmatic measure, that is the right thing to say at a national day rally to the majority who do not have the skills to emigrate. Of course it is not in the national interests to see our brightest and ablest leaving for greener pastures where they can expect a better life. No PM will encourage them to leave even though he knows that he would have done precisely the same in their shoes. Those who would leave because they can find a better life elsewhere will go anyway. You must be naive to think that they will change their plans because the PM says so. Rather, it will be those who cannot leave who feel placated. It gives them a comfortable label...they remain because they are 'stayers', rather than 'failures' because they cannot find a job elsewhere even if they are unhappy in their current circumstance. This is politics...what do you expect? -
You left out one category.. the creme de la creme that has no wish to exploit the 85-90% sheep and has no wish to be exploited... goes to Australia!Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Lies perpetuated by the Govt who clothe themselves in fine words to obscure the vision of the people who are also too stupid to recognise lies when it is presented.
In any electorate, 85-90% are sheep, and the remainder are either the people at the top exploiting the sheep or know that there is something very screwed but can't do anything about it.
Singapore be damned. Let the country burn.
What's the point of being in a country where just because you are unlucky enough to be born there, the P*P gives you more than half a million debt for necessities? -
We have to come down hard on NS dodgers because they threaten to disrupt a system that works. If we do not come down hard on one dodger, we will have hundreds of 'young promising musicians' trying to dodge NS tomorrow. NS is essential for Singapore to have a viable military deterrent against real foreign threats. It is pragmatism that requires us to deny the aspirations of young musicians in the higher national interest.
You miss the forrest for the trees.
If you really want to use mere pragmatism to justify NS, then indeed to most pragmatic thing to do for many males would be to avoid the entire system altogether and give up their Pink IC.
What does this little red dot give us that one cannot easily find elsewhere? This would be the most pragmatic course of action to take if life was a mere economic function.
The truth is this: The "pragmatic" push seems to benefit mostly one party and it is in their favour to keep things this way.Our pragmatic approach has brought Singapore from the third world to the first over the past 40 years. It is the myopic, obsessive idealism of living fossils that threaten our continued success against the wishes and interests of the majority of Singaporeans.
Really? Or was it the idealism of youth, ambition and promise that brought up Singapore.
One only need to check the history books to realize the mindset of Singaporeans then are very different from the mindsets now. They had far more "bread and butter" issues then us but the.
And what, pray tell, is the wishes and interests of the majority of Singaporeans? To look the other way every time we see dishonesty and injustice? To justify every single thing we do against our conscience in the name of "progress"? To assume that ignorance is bliss?
Sheer pragmatic thinking has visited upon us the horrors of the world. The Jews are a burden to us? Well what then is the partical way of solving that problem? The Final Solution. People who think differently presenting an issue? To the gulags it is.
We are already on the slipperly slope of that kind of thinking. To be human is to rise above the mere survival of the animal, when men stop becoming men, there is no question on what they can, and will do in the end. -
Pragmatism as the primary state ideology died when we were kicked out of Malaysia. The rest was idealism supported by pragmatism designed to reach our idealistic goals of being a developed global city state.
Nuff said. -
Pragmatism for the greater good can later be twisted to justify virtually anything... even murder. And it won't be long before some in power starts to be seduced by the temptation of self-promotion... the greater good of the people itself will be an idea that ends up being sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism.
Ultimately if pragmatism is not kept in check by any form of ideology that pertains beyond the immediate physical circumstancesÂ… it will very rapidly degenerate to the bottom line- and that is the preservation and promotion of the self.
If ideas like freedom, justice, fairness are considered expendable in the name of pragmatism, itÂ’s only just next door to the next logical step- the preservation of those who have the powers to practically make it happenÂ… for better or worse for those who are under their powers. Given human nature and history, I am more inclined to think that it is usually for the worse.
One only needs to read The Abolition of Man or That Hideous Strength to realize where such "pragmatic" thinking will eventually end up if taken to its logical conclusion.
If some people here are to be believed, then the old NKF was very economically-up-to-date and pragmatic in the way it was run.
Regarding NS... why defending a tiny island in war if our only idea was to protect the economic viability of it? The most pratical thing to do would be to cut your losses and toss away your IC to be in some other winning country.
Who wants to die for "pragmatic" purposes alone? Maybe OM should be the first in the line of fire to see if he can really put his money where his mouth is.
Can NS be run on the vision of pragmatism alone? Are soldiers willing to fight just to protect silver and gold (of which they don't even get a proper share of) on some little red dot?
Or do they defend ideas of honour, love, family and friends?
That said, OM's posts are quite hilarious in the way they try to distill the human condition down to an economic function... and then in another thread he gets hot under the collar about maid abuse.
If we were truly pragmatic:
1)We have the power and cash
2)The domestic workers need them
3)Hence it is well within our power to fleece them and make them virtual slaves.
Why do we need to consider the rights of some people from a third world country anyway? We make many more times their salary and the rules to treat them are of our own making. Why hamper ourselves by needing to consider their "rights"?
Indeed many of OM's very arguments could be used against himself in his domestic worker campaign.
Thankfully not all think like OM.
And of course we all have the most important thing that he does not:
We have the power to make our vote count when it comes down to it. -
Indeed I realize OM calls for pragmatism (or any possible approach he can find) only when it suits him, given his long history of self-contradiction.
How practical.
Hypothetically speaking, if someone stands to benefit greatly from OMÂ’s death and have devised some devious means to get away with it without any adverse consequences. And given they have accepted his view that ideals are for impractical people who have their heads in the clouds, and hence it is the bottom line that matters, abstract stuff like morality and right and wrong just the refuge of the idealistic and impractical ones.
What indeed, would stop them from murdering him?
After all, when one rejects ideologyÂ… the only thing thatÂ’s left in play is power- the strong shall rule over the weak and the fittest shall survive.
Does OM dare face the ultimate psychopathic implications of his argument for pragmatism? Or is he willing to approach all kinds of dark thinking that most wise men avoid just to support his view? -
Why you all so bad to OM?
Wait he don't invite you all to his apartment in the UK then you know. -
Just my 2 cents on this particular reply by OM
I just met a chinese couple from Singapore, now migrated to the US and holding US greencard. They came to Singapore because they were looking for a better life from Nanjing. Indeed, they did enjoy the perks that Singapore gave to TALENTS. Her husband got his PhD from NTU and became a research fellow in GINTIC. However, after giving birth to a son, the wife left Singapore with her Singapore passport to Canada. After 2 years, her husband got a job based on his position in GINTIC in a US govt organization.
The main reasons for leaving were:
1. She did not want her son to do NS --> NS dodging even before he had to do NS.
2. She saw how old people lived in Singapore and she did not want to (in her own words) buy prosperity with her youth and then pay for it in her old age.
3. Singapore was a unique meritocratic and pragmatic place that suited her pragmatic calculations - i.e. a great stepping stone to greener and more developed countries.
This is not the only episode or encounter with pragmatic talents that our govt wants to attract and then only lose to other places. But who can fault them since they all operate on the same pragmatic logic. You use me, I use you - all's fair.
What she couldn't understand was why I and my family are going back. Part of the reason is that I still consider Singapore my home. But with all the happenings in these few years, I wonder if that "idealistic" notion will survive. In fact, the current scheme that I am in has been discontinued in favor of attracting talents from north america by promising them with similar perks. Sad to say, most of my friends here only see Singapore as a poor poor alternative when they can't find anything better here in the US or for that matter in Australia.
So again, tell me why we are paying those guys up there millions when they fail to relook at specific policies? When they engage in groupthink?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:We have to come down hard on NS dodgers because they threaten to disrupt a system that works. If we do not come down hard on one dodger, we will have hundreds of 'young promising musicians' trying to dodge NS tomorrow. NS is essential for Singapore to have a viable military deterrent against real foreign threats. It is pragmatism that requires us to deny the aspirations of young musicians in the higher national interest.
Our pragmatic approach has brought Singapore from the third world to the first over the past 40 years. It is the myopic, obsessive idealism of living fossils that threaten our continued success against the wishes and interests of the majority of Singaporeans. -
First, your tale serves to illustrate what the government has been saying all along. With globalisation the race is on for the best talent worldwide. Since we could not offer better terms than the US, we lost that particular FT. In the same way, the US has lost its top researcher Edison Liu and UK lost its top scientist Sir David Lane to Singapore because we could offer them better terms. Obviously, no one country can offer the best terms to everyone. It comes down to a pragmatic decision as to who is most valuable to us at this point in time.Originally posted by vaxjunior:This is not the only episode or encounter with pragmatic talents that our govt wants to attract and then only lose to other places. But who can fault them since they all operate on the same pragmatic logic. You use me, I use you - all's fair.
I suggest you read the following article by an Oxford professor. It speaks of the present reality as well as the future risks and challenges we face (FUTURE OF CAPITALISM: A threatening tsunami of desire, Review, Straits Times, 3 Apr 2007).
Globalised capitalism is already here. From Moscow and Beijing to the Wall Street in the US, there is no denying it is firmly established. Even the communal kibbutz in Israel has bowed to the inevitable, given up their egalitarian ideals and adopted the pragmatic approach of remuneration by meritocracy.
The world is changing quickly and in a globalised economy, the risks are greater than ever. Fortunes of nations and individuals alike rise and fall in a matter of minutes. The one who is flexible and nimble, one who is able to make pragmatic decisions to take advantage of change will flourish whilst those who are fossilised in the straitjacket of their ideologies will become extinct, just like the tyrannosaur.
As Prof Ash said in his article, sustainability will be the Archilles heel of the current system and as Soros apparently pointed out, global markets are in a perpetual state of dysequilibrium. If anything, that should argue for an ever-pragmatic approach. What works in the past may not work tomorrow. Nothing is always right and nothing is inherently bad. The right decision is the one that ensures we are still around tomorrow, to soar over those who cannot keep up and so die like the incredibly tame but flightless dodo. -
How you can fail to see that what you just posted actually proves your opposition's point more then it does your own seems to happen only to you.
Why indeed should the Singaporean people, in this forward-moving and progressive globalized age submit themselves to being fleeced by the policies of the powers that are?
Do you seriously think the current favourable status quo for certain parties would be maintained the moment Singaporeans take very pragmatic measures and start to vote with their feet?
I doubt not, or else the idealogy of "stayers and quitters" would never been cooked up to contain the masses that are starting to show very pragmatic leanings and cause plenty of issues for the ones in power.
Do you seriously think that the current outflow of locals voting with their feet can seriously be made up for by an influx of FTs attracted towards Singapore exactly for the very pragmatic reasons with no real ties of loyalty whatsoever?
Do you seriously think that the current outflow of locals voting with their feet can seriously be made up for by an influx of FTs attracted towards Singapore exactly for the very pragmatic reasons with no real ties of loyalty whatsoever?
Do you think the current high incentives towards attracting FTs can be maintained indefinitely without a sizable local population to carry to burdens of NS and other associated issues that FTs do not have to worry about?
Do you seriously think that the globe trotting FTs will decide to take up the shackles of being a local once the reality of it becomes clear to them?
Indeed, you are right to say the local will become a Dodo if it keeps up with his current way of thinking- the most logical thing for him to do would be to become an FT itself and let some other Dodo carry the disadvantages of being a pink IC.
Do you seriously think this is a pragmatic mindset the government wants to promote? I think not, if not there would not be all this “stayer” and “quitter” talk. -
who are fossilised in the straitjacket of their ideologies will become extinct, just like the tyrannosaur.
Once again, please do your homework and realize what ultimately became of Coelurosauria .
Conversely, you could try looking outside your window each morning and realize the answer.
That you could post that statement once again, is slightly amusing and indicative of your ability to spout too much on the little that you know. -
Nothing is always right and nothing is inherently bad. The right decision is the one that ensures we are still around tomorrow, to soar over those who cannot keep up and so die like the incredibly tame but flightless dodo.
Indeed, I suppose you would have to say this to the person who stands to benefit from your death and has set himself to a foolproof murder of you and the unlawful Possession of your property.
Once again, do read The Abolition of Man, as well as the numerous other works out that the caution against the dangers of this thinking. Do a little work on history as well, and realize where such a creed has often ended up.
Indeed, if this is your creed, why get so hot under the collar about the state of domestic workers in Singapore? -
This so called pragmaticism works both ways anyhow, despite OM trying to avoid the issue entirely. As it is, people are feeling less and less connected to this rock they are living on, and frankly, their only care is jobs. But, if they don't get jobs, they will either 1. Vote for Opposition or 2. Get lost.
Ultimately, it is the Govt's loss. Seriously. The Govt then shouldn't expect its people to fight too hard for a country that fewer and fewer people, excepting the blind and idiotic, in the event of invasion. Or will the blind and idiotic abandon their country like traitors? Wait, do they even consider this their country? -
FYI, David Lane was only in Singapore till 2006. As for Dr Liu, I suspect he is still a US citizen though he heads up IMCB.
That's how pragmatism works. If that is what the govt is promoting, then Singapore will remain a port of call for professional workers without an identity of its own (other than a place for transient workers). In short, this is shooting ourselves in the foot and basically engaging a huge huge mistake. The point of this whole exercise is to develop talent and nurture talents and wanting talents to take root. Just attracting fly-by-night talents is a waste of resources that could be better used for other purposes.
Dsyequilibrium and state of flux do not necessary call for an ever pragmatic strategy. Rather, being surrounded by rapid and fluid environments requires one to not only be pragmatic to deal with short-term/near-term issues and challenges but more importantly, one has to have a vision - a long term goal/ideal to direct and chart the course. Without tempering pragmatism with idealism, one is doomed to mediocrity. This is evident from computer-generated agent simulation games. Agents that are only programmed with very short-term, specific (in this case pragmatic) commands will only find a local maxima that is usually not the global maxima. To circumvent this inherent problem, one have to be imbued with a larger sense of the environment in this case an analogy for idealism.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:First, your tale serves to illustrate what the government has been saying all along. With globalisation the race is on for the best talent worldwide. Since we could not offer better terms than the US, we lost that particular FT. In the same way, the US has lost its top researcher Edison Liu and UK lost its top scientist Sir David Lane to Singapore because we could offer them better terms. Obviously, no one country can offer the best terms to everyone. It comes down to a pragmatic decision as to who is most valuable to us at this point in time.
I suggest you read the following article by an Oxford professor. It speaks of the present reality as well as the future risks and challenges we face (FUTURE OF CAPITALISM: A threatening tsunami of desire, Review, Straits Times, 3 Apr 2007).
Globalised capitalism is already here. From Moscow and Beijing to the Wall Street in the US, there is no denying it is firmly established. Even the communal kibbutz in Israel has bowed to the inevitable, given up their egalitarian ideals and adopted the pragmatic approach of remuneration by meritocracy.
The world is changing quickly and in a globalised economy, the risks are greater than ever. Fortunes of nations and individuals alike rise and fall in a matter of minutes. The one who is flexible and nimble, one who is able to make pragmatic decisions to take advantage of change will flourish whilst those who are fossilised in the straitjacket of their ideologies will become extinct, just like the tyrannosaur.
As Prof Ash said in his article, sustainability will be the Archilles heel of the current system and as Soros apparently pointed out, global markets are in a perpetual state of dysequilibrium. If anything, that should argue for an ever-pragmatic approach. What works in the past may not work tomorrow. Nothing is always right and nothing is inherently bad. The right decision is the one that ensures we are still around tomorrow, to soar over those who cannot keep up and so die like the incredibly tame but flightless dodo. -
There's no need to get all worked up over OM. If you disagree with him, just state your point and move along.
Why waste your breath? there's no use debating with a fundamentalist, because they have already formed their opinion and will brook no latitude in shifting their attitudes towards certain issues. -
FYI, read today's newspapers:Originally posted by vaxjunior:FYI, David Lane was only in Singapore till 2006.
"PROFESSOR DAVID LANE, executive director of the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, who is taking over as chairman of the Biomedical Research Council, commenting on his new boss, Mr Lim Chuan Poh. Mr Lim succeeded this month as Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) chairman from Mr Philip Yeo."
(Review, Tech&Science, Straits Times 7 Apr) -
If Singapore does not succeed economically, there won't be a country worth fighting for.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Ultimately, it is the Govt's loss. Seriously. The Govt then shouldn't expect its people to fight too hard for a country that fewer and fewer people, excepting the blind and idiotic, in the event of invasion. Or will the blind and idiotic abandon their country like traitors? Wait, do they even consider this their country?
The problem with so many ideologues in Singapore is that they seem to think that some sort of socialist egalitarianism will eliminate poverty and establishes perfect social equality. It will not. From the communes in Stalinist Russia and Maoist Chinan to the kibbutz of Israel, time and again it has been shown that even the most fervent devotees of Marxist ideology end up with a new ruling elite. Corruption is rife and life is worse than before. If there is an added measure of equality, it's just that everyone is equally poor and miserable.
Speaking as one having arisen from a very poor background, what the poor needs is not equality. That will never happen in any case. What the poor needs is social mobility. With access to affordable, high quality education and plenty of scholarships available for bright students from poor backgrounds, those with talent can move up the social ladder. As Shakespeare said, "lowliness is young ambition's ladder'; coming from a poor socio-economic background is one of the greatest incentive to work harder than everyone else. A government should reward such individuals with drive and ambition to succeed.
As Singapore becomes a wealthy developed nation, there is regression towards the mean. The poor aren't as poor as we were in the past and young people today tend to talk about their rights and entitlement, rather than fight for every opportunity to better themselves. It is not surprising that foreigners, more hungry and ambitious than we are, will begin displace us from jobs and positions.
Ranting about foreigners will not halt the competition. Mahatir discovered as much after he complained about the immigrant Chinese who forced the Malays out of their businesses in his book, The Malay Dilemma'. He admitted that the economic powess of the Chinese could be attributed to their hard work and even blamed the laid-back culture of his own race for their inability to compete. He responded by trying to protect Malay interests with extension of the New Economic Plan (NEP), which he admitted was a failure, years later.
The current Malaysian government is trying to exempt the southern Johor economic zone from the restrictions of the NEP. That is a pragmatic move to attract investment and a poorly-disguised admission of the failure of the race-based state ideology.
It is ironic that wimpy Singaporeans who cannot compete are trying to urge the government to repeat the mistakes others have already learned from. -
The world is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
When you fight to succeed, one day you will reach a point when you want others not as fortunate as you to have the same chances to do so. It is called moving up the social consciousness ladder.
Too bad people who are blindsided by profit motive, can't see that. The danger of getting prosperous, is to lose a bit of humanity within. One can remain economically competitive, and yet look out for his fellow men. Anything else is pure laziness and a refusal or unwillingness to think outside of the profit motive paradigm.